Duds of Genius

[Cato]

     
   

      Later: Retardation may be too strong a word but at 21:00 in the 4th movement, 8th Symphony (Karajan/BPO, 19:02 Karajan/VPO)* Bruckner begins a contrapuntal section in the strings which features both the same and different themes in the voices. In time this develops into one of the most impressive climaxes in symphonic music, sooo why does it sound so lame at the beginning? This kind of awkwardness is not just a feature of the early music. It never disappears from his music entirely.

      _{* That covers everyone.}



     

My emphasis above.

IF - and without a score reference I cannot be exactly sure - it is what I believe you are referring to, the answer is in your question!

The "lameness" or the "awkwardness" which you hear may be precisely what Bruckner wants to portray: an ugly duckling transformation into the Trumpeter Swan.

What I have always heard there is a tentative nature becoming ever more confident.

[Lethevich]

Since what I'm talking about is familiar to a good number of people who think that Bruckner is the quintessential Dud of Genius (if not the Dud of non-Genius)

I kind of agree - any composer so bizarrely innovative and in his own world cannot help but be imperfect in some way (compositionally, conceptually or otherwise) - even his attempts to respond to criticism were unable to tame his unique creations. A lot of the things he does "right" are by many standards "wrong", which is what makes him a genius - his wrong choices are the right ones. His clodhopping scherzos are perfect, his tiresomely long adagios are still somehow perfect, etc, etc.

This is in marked opposition to, say, Brahms, who wrote in a different manner producing music just as good, but with a more self-aware mind, incapable of cultivating a style with such blatant "difficulties" as Bruckner's when analysed by others.

[kishnevi]

I kind of agree - any composer so bizarrely innovative and in his own world cannot help but be imperfect in some way (compositionally, conceptually or otherwise) - even his attempts to respond to criticism were unable to tame his unique creations. A lot of the things he does "right" are by many standards "wrong", which is what makes him a genius - his wrong choices are the right ones. His clodhopping scherzos are perfect, his tiresomely long adagios are still somehow perfect, etc, etc.

This is in marked opposition to, say, Brahms, who wrote in a different manner producing music just as good, but with a more self-aware mind, incapable of cultivating a style with such blatant "difficulties" as Bruckner's when analysed by others.

My difficulties with Bruckner are not with any particular musical choice he makes, but with his overall style.  I wouldn't say he has flaws, so much as I would say his general approach creates problems for me.
First, his music reminds me very often of a film score.  Had someone presented me with some passages of the Sixth without any attribution, I might have declared with great firmness that they were from the score to Lawrence of Arabia--there's a sort of Arabian figuration that shows up several times in (IIRC) the first movement.. My first reaction to the Fifth was "now I know where film score composers came from!"  The other symphonies are not quite so extreme in this respect.
Second, he seems to repeat himself from symphony to symphony.  In every symphony, there seem to be passages which would fit well into any of the other eight.    And his style remains consistent throughout--for instance, in the constant use of masses of brass.  I rather feel like taking him by the hand and saying, "Very nice, Anton, but can't you do it differently this time?"

Mind you,  I don't dislike Bruckner's music.  But I can go quite some time without listening to it, and usually I listen with the purpose of seeing if it "clicks" for me this time  So far, it hasn't.  Apparently, I don't hear in it what some other people hear.

[Lethevich]

His obsession with template and format is quite unique for a composer to take to such an extent. I would feel that his primary appeal is as a tinkerer within an established system until I remember what a rule-breaker his "system" is in the first place. It's certainly something in his personality, perhaps related to his counting mania, but I figure that other composers limited themselves severely as well - only not quite to the extent of Bruckner's quiet intro/big coda symphonic style.

One way to view it is not only each symphony being an experiment in what to do with the template this time, but more of each later symphony being a total re-write of the previous, striving towards something sublime. After all, Brahms' four are all magnificent, Beethoven's 3rd-9th are impossible to pick over one another, but Bruckner did gradually improve, albeit after reaching a high level of achivement early on. The 3rd is astonishing but naive, the 4th is more accomplished but similar, but by the time the 8th is reached, a watershed moment has occured. Then he mounts another subtle revolution after already "perfecting" the formula, taking it into furthermore radicial directions in the 9th - the ambiguous tonality of the adagio, the unique scherzo, the first movement moulded into an organic whole with a greater mastery than before. In the 9th, his music - as naive as his stylistic fingerprints are in general - has reached a level of sublimity that almost no composer can touch.

It feels like there is a huge dichotomy in his music, but I don't think I have a coherent explanation of it

Edit: hehe I cut out a bit by accident, also spelling fixes.

[CD]

Schumann's symphonies immediately spring to mind — many passages of inspiration, but for some reason (for me) none really "persuade".

[DavidW]

This thread was not created to just rant on composers whose music fails to move you whatsoever (edit: wasn't specifically directed at you Corey!).  It was to discuss works that don't work for you from composers that you admire as genius.  If you feel that you know better, and you could step in to correct a composer for what you consider flaws in many of his works, you are just using this thread as an excuse to gripe.

There is no right or wrong with art.  Art simply is.  A composer that writes music still performed more than a hundred years after his death is certainly above such shallow criticism.  I thought that this thread would be interesting, but now it's nothing more than petty griping.

[drogulus]

     

     

Mind you,  I don't dislike Bruckner's music.  But I can go quite some time without listening to it, and usually I listen with the purpose of seeing if it "clicks" for me this time  So far, it hasn't.  Apparently, I don't hear in it what some other people hear.

       This is very far from my own feeling about Bruckner. You really have to care about this music to be amazed at how it can be so powerful and awkward at the same time. I wish I could capture my feeling about it. I thought a bunch of people would chime in and say they felt the same way.

His obsession with template and format is quite unique for a composer to take to such an extent. I would feel that his primary appeal is as a tinkerer within an established system until I remember what a rule-breaker his "system" is in the first place. It's certainly something in his personality, perhaps related to his counting mania, but I figure that other composers limited themselves severely as well - only not quite to the extent of Bruckner's quiet intro/big coda symphonic style.

One way to view it is not only each symphony being an experiment in what to do with the template this time, but more of each later symphony being a total re-write of the previous, striving towards something sublime. After all, Brahms' four are all magnificent, Beethoven's 3rd-9th are impossible to pick over one another, but Bruckner did gradually improve, albeit after reaching a high level of achivement early on. The 3rd is astonishing but naive, the 4th is more accomplished but similar, but by the time the 8th is reached, a watershed moment has occured. Then he mounts another subtle revolution after already "perfecting" the formula, taking it into furthermore radicial directions in the 9th - the ambiguous tonality of the adagio, the unique scherzo, the first movement moulded into an organic whole with a greater mastery than before. In the 9th, his music - as naive as his stylistic fingerprints are in general - has reached a level of sublimity that almost no composer can touch.

It feels like there is a huge dichotomy in his music, but I don't think I have a coherent explanation of it

Edit: hehe I cut out a bit by accident, also spelling fixes.

     Interesting. What you say sounds very much like my reaction. Naive sounds better than retarded, more composerly. One thing particularly sticks out in your post.....COUNTING MANIA?? Yes, it's faintly possible that an obsessive/compulsive might strew his music with patterns that seem (heh!) naive. Thanks, that sounds more like a real explanation than "he does it on purpose". One way or another what he does is purposeful. In fact I'm thinking right now about points in the music where this might apply.

[greg]

      I changed my mind about the Mahler and Bruckner 8th's. My initial reaction was that the works were failures. Very quickly I changed my mind about the Bruckner and had to accommodate myself to a new understanding of how serious flaws do and sometimes don't hinder the appreciation of large scale works. The same flaws that Bruckner-phobes point to are equally obvious to the rest of us. My first reaction to many Bruckner works was "This has got to be a joke". I wondered who was pulling my leg concerning Bruckner's fitness to be considered the heir of Beethoven. From time to time I still think about that. Why don't the flaws matter for me? More to the point, why don't they matter to Brucknerians generally? Does anyone know the answer to this, besides the trivial answer that everyone who reveres Bruckner's music is obviously wrong?

      Recently I've been reassessing Mahler's 8th. It's starting to get to me.

"This has got to be a joke"

I thought I was the only one who used to think that. It just sounded like simple, repetitive phrases and very awkward flute solos that don't even fit in anywhere. Maybe it is, but...

After awhile, the music grew so much on me that I don't even think that at all anymore. His symphonies are my #1 top choice of listening when it comes to driving or exploring the world on Google Street View. Nothing else quite hits the spot in the same way.

It's strange how misleading first impression can be sometimes.

[some guy]

One thing seems clear. Not that it needed this thread to demonstrate it. But it has. And that is practically any given listener can fail, spectacularly, with practically any piece. I'm very tempted to say that the more "genius" the piece, the more spectacular the fail. But however cute that is (however neat), I'm not sure that that's true.

It does seem that if you bring a lot of preconceptions to an unfamiliar piece (unfamiliar to you), you are setting yourself up to fail. That's the message I'm getting from this Bruckner subthread. And just look at how many listeners have continued to fail after the initial fail, even though they have continued to listen to Bruckner pieces. Reminiscent of the people who report as continuing to try to understand/like Schoenberg--and who claim, explicitly or implicitly, their failure (shared, of course, by many) is a failure of the technique.

Like I've tried to say before, in any musical situation there are at least two main things involved, not one: the piece being played is one, of course....

[karlhenning]

There is no right or wrong with art.

(I think this invites a question of context, but . . .) What of a composer refining his score?

[drogulus]

One thing seems clear. Not that it needed this thread to demonstrate it. But it has. And that is practically any given listener can fail, spectacularly, with practically any piece. I'm very tempted to say that the more "genius" the piece, the more spectacular the fail. But however cute that is (however neat), I'm not sure that that's true.

It does seem that if you bring a lot of preconceptions to an unfamiliar piece (unfamiliar to you), you are setting yourself up to fail. That's the message I'm getting from this Bruckner subthread. And just look at how many listeners have continued to fail after the initial fail, even though they have continued to listen to Bruckner pieces. Reminiscent of the people who report as continuing to try to understand/like Schoenberg--and who claim, explicitly or implicitly, their failure (shared, of course, by many) is a failure of the technique.

Like I've tried to say before, in any musical situation there are at least two main things involved, not one: the piece being played is one, of course....

     That makes it sound like a listener is this poor subjective soul entirely at the mercy of the music. That isn't very credible. What you describe could only be the case if it were true that something above and beyond how people react to music certified masterpieces, which then would be officially flawless regardless of what any listener perceived.

     Something faintly resembling this might be true, where listeners of great experience wield authority in the minds of less experienced listeners along with the obvious authority of musicians, critics and the weight of history's verdict.

      If the latter is the case then until recently the verdict, which I feel entitled to dispute, is that Bruckner is a failed composer with deep and obvious flaws, flaws not being formal mistakes but awkward and crude passages that, it's obvious now, are heard by a number of listeners here.

      Where I differ from many listeners is insisting on both, that Bruckner is a supreme symphonist and a seriously flawed one. Most of those who agree with my first conclusion are disputing the second, and I reckon most people who agree about the flaws dispute the first conclusion.

      I'm having my cake and eating it. I hear the flaws and love the music anyway. Furthermore I insist that there is nothing even slightly contradictory about my position.

"This has got to be a joke"

I thought I was the only one who used to think that. It just sounded like simple, repetitive phrases and very awkward flute solos that don't even fit in anywhere. Maybe it is, but...

After awhile, the music grew so much on me that I don't even think that at all anymore. His symphonies are my #1 top choice of listening when it comes to driving or exploring the world on Google Street View. Nothing else quite hits the spot in the same way.

It's strange how misleading first impression can be sometimes.

      First, it's not at all unusual to react this way. Second, and this is important, your reaction may have been hasty but you don't need to throw out the data. The strangeness of Bruckner is one of the wonders of the musical world, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that even among those who love his music it isn't easy to resolve the reasons for it or what to think about it.

[Scarpia]

     That makes it sound like a listener is this poor subjective soul entirely at the mercy of the music. That isn't very credible. What you describe could only be the case if it were true that something above and beyond how people react to music certified masterpieces, which then would be officially flawless regardless of what any listener perceived.

You have completely missed the point.  A work of art is not a mathematical derivation.  It's quality is subjective and related to its cultural context, and it makes no sense to characterize a work of art in terms of flaws.  That is not consistent with the definition of the word, despite the fact that it is a favorite among "critics" whose business is to create nothing and make their living by finding "flaws" in the works of great artists. 

[Luke]

          I'm having my cake and eating it. I hear the flaws and love the music anyway. Furthermore I insist that there is nothing even slightly contradictory about my position.

No, there isn't, and it's a position I'm well aware that I often take myself. I'd go so far as to say that very often, I love the flaws as much as the moments of perfection in some of my favourite pieces/composers, but that's possibly because, for me, music is just as much about trying and failing, human endeavour, as it is about the attainment of some unreachable-by-mortals Parnassus.

In the case of two of my very favourite composers, two who reach me like few others and whose every note is precious to me - I'm talking about Janacek and Tippett here - the flaws are very often evident and undeniable....and I love them; the music would be weaker without them, is my perverse view - weaker without Janacek's sometimes unbalanced orchestration, without his straining for the impossible; weaker without Tippett's unashamed, unabashed, unafraid striving, his structural miscalculations, his idiosyncratic texts (much criticised but perfect in their own ungainly way) - what did Browning say....'Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp/Or what's a heaven for?.

And this love of the slightly more human, vulnerable side of things might actually be one reason why I adore the Musical Offering more than any other piece of Bach, emphatically more than the Art of Fugue particularly (in its inpenetrable perfection that's a piece which I have never managed to approach and feel close to, if I am honest). Yes, it is a less balanced, less 'perfect' set of pieces than the AoF  - but in its diversity, its playfulness, its perversity, its ocassional unpolished moments (the first Ricercare, which is an approximation of Bach's oringal improvisation for the royal presence, is what I am thinking of), its obscurities (the augmentation canon, all stretched and squashed intervals and marvellous for it) its multi-faceted styles (from the sublime greatest-trio-sonata-of-all-time in the most up-to-date gallant syle Bach could muster through the tiniest fragmentary canon to the Ricercare, in all its emphatically old-fashioned splendour )....it seems to contain a whole world, Mahler-like, to sum up Bach's life, to point backwards and forwards, to look inwards and outwards in a way no other piece of Bach's does (in my experience). In brief - it might be flawed, but if so those flaws are part of why I find it the most moving work in the Bach canon.

[Elgarian]

Some bits of Ruskin might be relevant:

'The demand for perfection is always a sign of a misunderstanding of the ends of art.'

He goes on to explain (in part), that:

'No great man ever stops working till he has reached his point of failure: that is to say, his mind is always far in advance of his powers of execution, and the latter will now and then give way in trying to follow it. ... and according to his greatness he becomes so accustomed to the feeling of dissatisfaction with the best he can do, that in moments of lassitude or anger with himself he will not care though the beholder [or listener] be dissatisfied also. ... If we are to have great men working at all, or less men doing their best, the work will be imperfect, however beautiful'.

[From 'The Nature of Gothic'.]

[drogulus]

You have completely missed the point.  A work of art is not a mathematical derivation.  It's quality is subjective and related to its cultural context, and it makes no sense to characterize a work of art in terms of flaws.  That is not consistent with the definition of the word, despite the fact that it is a favorite among "critics" whose business is to create nothing and make their living by finding "flaws" in the works of great artists.  The fact that you would claim to have found "flaws" in a work like Bruckner's 8th symphony is sufficient for me to discount anything else you might post to this board.

      You have stated a position that's very close to mine. As for my amazing ability to hear wrongness in music, it operates the same way yours does, only with the qualification that I don't cancel those impressions when I come to love the music, but somehow incorporate them. I don't ever want to lose the strangeness.

      Perhaps I should avoid the word "flaw" unless I'm talking to a Bruckner-phobe who will no doubt object to the word "great". That's too much work. If you can't figure out by now that I don't mean a formal error but an impression I don't know what else to say. I think I've made myself clear enough to avoid such characterizations.

[DavidW]

(I think this invites a question of context, but . . .) What of a composer refining his score?

It seems that whenever that happens some prefer the original, some the changes.  Which is right?  I dunno.  But we really don't need three hammerblows Sarge.

[DavidW]

You know, I think I did bring my own preconceptions about what A Musical Offering should sound like, I think I'll give it a fresh listen with open ears.

[drogulus]

Some bits of Ruskin might be relevant:

'The demand for perfection is always a sign of a misunderstanding of the ends of art.'

He goes on to explain (in part), that:

'No great man ever stops working till he has reached his point of failure: that is to say, his mind is always far in advance of his powers of execution, and the latter will now and then give way in trying to follow it. ... and according to his greatness he becomes so accustomed to the feeling of dissatisfaction with the best he can do, that in moments of lassitude or anger with himself he will not care though the beholder [or listener] be dissatisfied also. ... If we are to have great men working at all, or less men doing their best, the work will be imperfect, however beautiful'.

[From 'The Nature of Gothic'.]

      Perhaps that does go to the issue here. I think the issue is not "Is Bruckner flawed?" but rather "Are great works of art necessarily flawless?". My answer is no, and that applies to Bruckner because of all the composers considered great today he is the most seriously flawed by consensus opinion. That consensus would be arrived at by factoring in the opinion of a representative sampling of composers, musicians, critics and elite listeners whether they held a highly favorable opinion of Bruckner or not. That's a guess on my part.

      One further word on the nature of "flaws". It strikes me that they will not often have the objective character of a mistake in arithmetic, even if a bizarre kind of arithmetic is responsible.

[drogulus]

It seems that whenever that happens some prefer the original, some the changes.  Which is right?  I dunno.  But we really don't need three hammerblows Sarge.

      Zander did 3 when I saw him conduct. I can go either way on this one.

[Elgarian]

As for my amazing ability to hear wrongness in music, it operates the same way yours does, only with the qualification that I don't cancel those impressions when I come to love the music, but somehow incorporate them. I don't ever want to lose the strangeness.

If I understand you correctly (I hope I do), that strikes me as a fine expression of a very insightful perception. It  contains within itself the implication that what we might initially call a 'flaw' becomes transformed into what we might call 'strangeness'; and when that happens there's an increase in empathy with the composer, because by transforming 'flaw' into 'strangeness', we've fulfilled our half of the engagement with the music (the composer already having fulfilled his half).